Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lutwak

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Leo Lutwak}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Leo Lutwak}})

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. As I wrote in my unprod edit summary, and as this WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE generic no-WP:BEFORE no-depth nomination totally fails to address, "Obituaries (not paid death notices) in three major national newspapers (NYT, LAT, WaPo) makes notability very clear." I didn't also include in the edit summary that with six publications with over 100 citations each (from a time when citations were not as high as they are now) he has a good case for WP:PROF#C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, bordering on a speedy keep per the third rationale. The obituaries from national news orgs that David Eppstein cites are clearly sufficient on their own ([https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/us/leo-lutwak-an-early-critic-of-fenphen-is-dead-at-77.html], [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-mar-05-me-passings5.4-story.html]), but I decided to look for some other ones. News coverage was 'extremely' easy to find. From newspaper searches, I found [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/121406205/unheeded-warnings-on-leathal-diet-pill/], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/121406426/cornell-school-gets-funds-for-research/], [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/121406522/health-problems-seen-due-to-calcium-lack/]. He's one of the main featured focuses of a book ([https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dispensing_with_the_Truth/jEfltOLCdagC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22leo%20lutwak%22]) and was featured in another ([https://www.google.com/books/edition/Battling_Goliath_Inside_a_22_Billion_Leg/VRboXcTNZJkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22leo+lutwak%22&pg=PT68&printsec=frontcover]) about his work on against Fen-Phen. This isn't a comprehensive pulling -- I just randomly pulled specific examples here, and there's more. Clear keep. Nomader (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep, based on the prior two posters. Clearly this should pass based on WP:NPROF with multiple papers with 100+ citations as well as WP:GNG based on obituaries and newspaper articles. --hroest 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don't disagree with the three users above regarding the keep in this case, though the rationale David Eppstein puts forward seems very US-centric, introducing a criteria for notability largely limited to US residents (though I am sure that's not the intention). Jeppiz (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• :Not at all. I would consider someone with published obituaries in The Times and The Guardian, or in The Times of India and The Hindu, or Le Monde and Le Figaro, etc. etc., in exactly the same way. Also, it is not "a rationale I am putting forward". It is WP:GNG. If we have in-depth coverage in reliable sources, independent of each other and of the subject, then the subject is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a dreadful article and needs expanding to explain what he did, where it had an impact, and where it did not. The Google Books links posted above make it clear that it would be possible to write an article that said something meaningful about the man's work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.